[JURIST] Taiwan and China [JURIST news archives] on Sunday signed a landmark judicial cooperation agreement [DOC text, in Mandarin], under which each side will help to repatriate suspected criminals. The transfers of almost 40,000 criminals and suspects between the nations have been facilitated by non-governmental organizations since 1990, but the new agreement allows for direct judicial cooperation [Xinhua report]. Taiwan hopes the agreement will help combat the trend of economic criminals successfully fleeing to China [Taipei Times report]. The agreement also calls for cooperation in serving court documents, enforcing civil judgments and sharing evidence — especially for crimes such as kidnapping and drug offenses.

The strained political relationship between Taiwan and China that now dates back 60 years to the 1949 Communist takeover of the mainland has had a variety of legal repercussions over time. In 2007, calls by then-Taiwan president Chen Shui-Bian for a new independentist constitution [JURIST report] for the country drew severe criticism from the mainland leadership, with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing saying in response that "whoever wants to split away will become a criminal in history." In 2005, China's National People's Congress approved an anti-secession law [JURIST news archive] authorizing the use of "non-peaceful means" against Taiwan as a last resort in reunification.

[JURIST] Kuwait's Ministry of Foreign Affairs [official website, in Arabic] said in a statement [text, in Arabic] Sunday that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [official website] has promised that the US will review the files of four Kuwaiti detainees at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. Kuwaiti Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammad al-Sabah [official profile] met with Clinton on Saturday during her first visit to Kuwait as Secretary of State [JURIST news archive]. Sheikh Mohammad told Clinton that recently released information regarding interrogation techniques [JURIST report] increased America's obligation to either prosecute or release the detainees.

In October 2008, the US Department of Defense [official website] announced it had filed new war crimes charges [JURIST report] against two Kuwaiti men held at Guantanamo. In May 2008, the US military said one bomber in a series of suicide attacks in Mosul, Iraq, was a Kuwaiti who had been released [JURIST report] after three years in Guantanamo. In May 2007, a Kuwaiti appeals court upheld the acquittal of two former Guantanamo detainees, agreeing with a lower court that there was insufficient evidence to convict [JURIST reports].

[JURIST] Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International [advocacy websites] and 60 other groups on Friday urged the Burundian government [joint statement text; press release] to repeal a new law criminalizing homosexuality [JURIST news archive] in the country. The law was promulgated by President Pierre Nkurunziza [BBC profile] on April 22, and subjects those found guilty of engaging in a homosexual relationship to a fine or up to two years in prison, or both. The groups said that the law violates the Burundi Constitution, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [texts] and would harm anti-AIDS efforts in the country:

We consider the law to violate the rights to privacy and freedom from discrimination protected by Burundi's Constitution and enshrined in its international treaty commitments, notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We deeply regret that the Burundian government has made a decision that writes human rights violations into law.

We regret that the law will hamper Burundi's attempts to fight AIDS, by further marginalizing an at-risk population.

We respectfully remind the Government of Burundi that according to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, arrests on the basis of sexual orientation are, by definition, human rights violations. We will carefully monitor any arrests made on the basis of this law.

[JURIST] Leaders of the American League of Lobbyists, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and American Civil Liberties Union [advocacy websites] on Friday asked the administration of US President Barack Obama [official website; JURIST news archive] to eliminate or change restrictions it has put on contact that lobbyists can have with administration officials concerning American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 [text, PDF; official website] projects. The restrictions were created by a March 20 memo [text] from Obama, in which he ordered that officials could only consider written input on the projects from lobbyists, and that the communications must be posted on a government website. In a meeting with administration ethics advisor Norm Eisen, the groups asked that they be allowed to have in-person meetings with officials about the projects, and that information on administration meetings with groups other than registered lobbyists also be published.

In a joint letter [text, PDF] written shortly after the rules were issued, the groups argued that the ban was an ineffective way of reducing the influence of special interests, and arbitrarily limited the free speech rights of lobbyists:

[B]anning lobbyists from speaking with executive branch officials will not, in and of itself, preclude petitioning the government. Rather, such a ban simply will ensure that such contacts occur between government officials and non-lobbyists, who are not governed by any regulations or penalties for misconduct. In fact, banning lobbyists – often people with experience and subject matter expertise navigating the intricacies of federal regulations and agency bureaucracy – may actually inhibit the speedy and responsible expenditure of funds on worthy projects and applicants.

In this sense, the directive is both over-inclusive and under-inclusive. It limits the free speech rights of certain registered lobbyists with absolutely no pecuniary or other improper interest in Recovery Act projects, applications or applicants. It fails to restrain non-registered lobbyists who have substantial pecuniary interests in the Recovery Act. The purposes of the directive can be achieved in a far more effective fashion, while at the same time preserving the speech rights of the maximum number of Americans.